Top Law Schools

I'm confused about what the difference between the two breaches are. Thanks for any help.

Quiet enjoyment is a right, which can lead to the remedy of constructive eviction.

.

I wouldn't call the implied warrantee of habitability a right... it's a warrantee. If violated, constructive eviction doctrine has broadened the tenant's rights. They have the choice to recover rent already paid, withhold rent, terminate the lease and sue for damages, or in some cases repair and deduct.

Wholigan wrote:Quiet enjoyment is a right, which can lead to the remedy of constructive eviction.

Wait a minute. Constructive eviction isn't a remedy, it's a breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment; or am I missing something? If the landlord (or his successors/assignees/heirs and/or someone with "better" title to the leased property) does something that amounts to constructive eviction, then they have breached the covenant of quiet enjoyment and the tenant has the right to stop paying the lease and to move out correct?

BruceWayne wrote:

Wholigan wrote:Quiet enjoyment is a right, which can lead to the remedy of constructive eviction.

Wait a minute. Constructive eviction isn't a remedy, it's a breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment; or am I missing something? If the landlord (or his successors/assignees/heirs and/or someone with "better" title to the leased property) does something that amounts to constructive eviction, then they have breached the covenant of quiet enjoyment and the tenant has the right to stop paying the lease and to move out correct?

You have it right. Constructive eviction will allow you to terminate the lease or seek some type of remedy. It isn't a remedy in itself. It is an action by the landlordthat would allow for a remedy on the part of the tenant.

I guess my better question is what is the difference between covenant of quiet enjoyment and implied warranty of habitability? Other than implied warranty of habitability only applying to residential leases. Is it that for covenant of quiet enjoyment the tenant must leave the premises in order to establish constructive eviction?

Wholigan wrote:Quiet enjoyment is a right, which can lead to the remedy of constructive eviction.

FAIL

The distinction between IWoH and Right to Quiet Enjoyment turns on the "condition" of the leased property vs. the behavior of other people around the property. The IWoH warrants that the premises are in at least good enough condition to be lived in, based generally on housing codes, and/or substantial threat to tenant's health and safety.

However, even if the premises meet the IWoH (good enough to be lived in, no safety issues, cool with housing codes), the RtQE can still be violated if the landlord or persons acting under the LL (other tenants, too, depending on court and if the other T's have violated their leases) interfere with Tenant's possession or use of the premises.

So, IWoH is that the premises are good enough to be lived in, and RtWE is the right to live free of interference in the premises.

Thanks a bunch.

BruceWayne wrote:

Wholigan wrote:Quiet enjoyment is a right, which can lead to the remedy of constructive eviction.

Wait a minute. Constructive eviction isn't a remedy, it's a breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment; or am I missing something? If the landlord (or his successors/assignees/heirs and/or someone with "better" title to the leased property) does something that amounts to constructive eviction, then they have breached the covenant of quiet enjoyment and the tenant has the right to stop paying the lease and to move out correct?

Nicholasnickynic wrote:

Wholigan wrote:Quiet enjoyment is a right, which can lead to the remedy of constructive eviction.

FAIL

Maybe my answer was wrong, but this exact question was asked in my property review class a couple of days ago and what I said is exactly what my prof said, which is why I jumped on his question. I even checked my notes just now. So for the purposes of my exam, I will stick with my own answer.

Nicholasnickynic wrote:

Wholigan wrote:Quiet enjoyment is a right, which can lead to the remedy of constructive eviction.

FAIL

Maybe my answer was wrong, but this exact question was asked in my property review class a couple of days ago and what I said is exactly what my prof said, which is why I jumped on his question. I even checked my notes just now. So for the purposes of my exam, I will stick with my own answer.

I asked this question too and got a completely different answer. Constructive eviction is a property remedy (ie. requires privity of estate) and breach of ICQE is a contract remedy (privity of K). So they achieve the same thing in different situations.

The other difference was that a constructive eviction doesn't require notice and reasonable time for LL to fix (ICQE does). You can just leave and seek declaratory judgment. Under ICQE, if something substantially interferes with the Ked for purpose of the property, then you have to provide notice and a reasonable time to correct.

Omerta wrote:

Nicholasnickynic wrote:

Wholigan wrote:Quiet enjoyment is a right, which can lead to the remedy of constructive eviction.

FAIL

Maybe my answer was wrong, but this exact question was asked in my property review class a couple of days ago and what I said is exactly what my prof said, which is why I jumped on his question. I even checked my notes just now. So for the purposes of my exam, I will stick with my own answer.

I asked this question too and got a completely different answer. Constructive eviction is a property remedy (ie. requires privity of estate) and breach of ICQE is a contract remedy (privity of K). So they achieve the same thing in different situations.

The other difference was that a constructive eviction doesn't require notice and reasonable time for LL to fix (ICQE does). You can just leave and seek declaratory judgment. Under ICQE, if something substantially interferes with the Ked for purpose of the property, then you have to provide notice and a reasonable time to correct.

Not true, according to Barbri and my professor. While property law varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, the general rule for constructive eviction is there must be 1) substantial interference w/ property 2) notice to LL to repair 3) and if failure to remedy the situation the T must vacate the premises in a reasonable time.

BARBRI gave an easy to remember acronym. SING: Substantial interference, notice, and goodbye... i.e. vacate the premise.

The other poster in this thread nailed the OPs question...